Should governments put a maximum price on houses?

theinfectedmaster

Argument Topic: Yes. This is something that needs to be done. Houses are an essential human right.

I think the government needs to put a maximum price on houses because the houses in the U.S. and a lot of other countries is overpriced, and it's going to prevent a lot of people from being able to get houses. Most people in the U.S. aren't even millionaires. Houses should only be 1/10 of what they're worth. The government should make it illegal for people to price their house at $100,000 or more.

aureus

Argument Topic: No. Placing a price ceiling on housing would only exacerbate the issue that is attempting to be fixed

Price ceilings or limits can be an appealing idea to try and solve a housing crises. 

Unfortunately, placing pricing limits would not increase the number of people getting houses as the existing houses are already being sold. The amount of future builds would massively fall due to the removal of incentive on builders/developers to meet the demand expressed by the market.

Price controls have been tried through out history and have proven ineffective due to a mixture of inflation, black market trading and circumnavigation of the legislation.

The solution to a lack of housing is to either increase the supply by build more houses or by decreasing the demand e.g. major economic downturn.

MayCaesar

That this kind of proposals is taken seriously by anyone at all is the reason we cannot all live in prosperity. You have performed absolutely zero economical analysis of the housing market in the US and just expressed your feelings. "I feel like houses should only be worth 10% of their current price", "I feel like no house should cost above $100,000" (and even these two claims contradict each other)...

You are free to go out there and make your case before the house owners: "You want to sell me this house for $500,000, but you really should consider my economical position and sell it to me for $50,000". Good luck in such negotiations. You are not free to impose your world view on others, however, and compel them at a gunpoint to sell you the house for whatever you like - the latter is robbery, and robbers should be placed in a very special kind of housing, with bars and armed guards. And you will get that housing for free, guaranteed!

I will sell my house for however much I please, take it or leave it. You are free to do with yours however you see fit. Sell it for 1/10th of its market price if you like, but get off my lawn.

John_C_87

@theinfectedmaster

I was wondering what anyone thinks about this.
I am sure you are asking the wrong questiom.

theinfectedmaster

@MayCaesar This has nothing to do with free speech. If prices get excessive to where almost no one can buy them, then the government needs to intervene and put a price roof on items because, otherwise, the poor and potentially middle class people suffer, especially poor working class people.

theinfectedmaster

@John_C_87 No I'm not.

theinfectedmaster

@MayCaesar I'm very anti-capitalist by the way.

John_C_87

@theinfectedmaster

@John_C_87 No I'm not.

So you had not been wondering what I was thinking or why? I apologize it would have been much more clear had you just written " I was wondering what everyone though but John_C_87."
Are you telling me what I am doing or are you telling me what I am thinking..I am think you are asking the wrong question. I will no bother you any more.

MayCaesar

theinfectedmaster said:

@MayCaesar I'm very anti-capitalist by the way.

Of course you are. Every child is. Capitalism in a system in which free and independent adults peacefully negotiate trade contracts, based on the principle of mutual contribution. Children though just want the candy - and throw a fit when the adult does not give them one. "Houses are too expensive? Lower the prices, bastards, or get shot!"

This is caveman mentality. What does a caveman do when he wants something and does not have it, but his neighbor does? He picks up a club and goes to his neighbor to loot the goodies. Precisely what every socialist regime has done to its people. Rather than understanding the nuances of human interaction in markets, they want to just do what their stomach and reproductive organ tells them at the moment.

You could go out there, develop a real estate business, build houses and then live your dream and sell them for next to nothing. But it is easier to take something someone else has built, is it not?

Dreamer

There is a lot of problems with housing prices. This will take a multi-prong solution. A maximum price is not one of those solutions.

First, there is the estate tax break. When an ultra rich person dies they can leave their super expensive house to their heir(s) with huge tax breaks. Simply removing this tax break would allow the free market to do its work and housing prices would decrease.

Second, religious tax exemptions have to go. Increasingly there is no difference between Christianity and alt-right politics. This is a massive amount of land tied up that could be used for housing.

Next, remove the homeowner's advantage. Taxes encourage people to own as oppose to rent. There is no reason for owners to have this tax break over renters.

theinfectedmaster

@MayCaesar I'm an adult who thinks it's bad myself. I'm 21 by the way.

theinfectedmaster

@John_C_87 I like to hear everyone's opinions on a debate, including my own.

just_sayin

@theinfectedmaster
I am going to take a wild guess that you have never lived in a communist country.  Would it surprise you to find out that in Cuba, where I spent some time, people can now own their homes.  This wasn't always the case.  Up until 2011 all property belonged to the state (in 2019 it became part of the 'constitution' in Cuba).  You would pay a large fee (think cost of the home) to the government and it would remain your rented space until you died.  Immediately at death anyone could 'rent' the property away from your descendants who were still in the home, if they were the first to apply for it.  With the Cuban government getting all the money from 'rent', why do you think they switched to a private property model after so long?  The short answer is Cuba's economy needs private property to bolster its lagging economy.  If you think I'm wrong, I'd love to hear your rationale for why a long term communist country suddenly started allowing private property.

You think the government can fix the housing issue?  Did it ever occur to you that the government may have caused the housing issue?  Are there companies that would be happy to build less expensive housing?  Certainly.  Builders would gladly build homes for that market, but government restrictions on land use, construction standards, building type, number of floors permitted, etc.  add to the cost of a home, and prohibit the creation of new homes because much of the land is not permitted to have them.  

@Dreamer
Why do you think a death tax is fair?  Seriously, if someone worked hard to buy their home or farm, why shouldn't they be able to pass that on to their descendants.  Isn't it their property to do with as they wish?  Death taxes place an unfair burden on family members to pay absorbent taxes on property they just obtained.  Support for this tax seems motivated by envy and greed - 2 very deadly sins.

You said 'religious tax exemptions have to go'.  Why?  Are you going to take the property of other non-profit groups, or are you just targeting religious organizations?  Religious groups purchased their property, much like other companies, non-profits, or citizens did.  Why is it just to take away their right because of their religious status?  I have to be honest with you, it seems incredibly bigoted on the surface.  But, I think you should be given a chance to explain yourself.  Can you explain your rationale?  

theinfectedmaster

@just_sayin This doesn't talk about communism though.

just_sayin

theinfectedmaster said:

@just_sayin This doesn't talk about communism though.

I think you can apply a lot of the principles though.  Think about your family's home.  How do you treat it?  Now think about places or things you don't own and how you treat them - parks, schools, buses, rental cars, etc.  Which do you personally spend money on to replace or fix?  I'm going to guess you are more likely to spend money on something that belongs to you.  If you are in a rental apartment - ask yourself when was the last time you personally paid for renovations for the place.  Odds are you haven't.  We take care of the things we own, and we aren't as likely to care for the things everyone owns.  I know that when I rent a car, it is likely to see more air time than Tony Hawk at the X-Games.  Now, think how this applies to economics.  If someone buys a house they use contractors, roofers, electricians, plumbers, and they buy furniture and electronics for their home.  Each house sold stimulates the economy a little bit either directly or indirectly - like when the painter buys himself a sandwich at Subway from the money he made off of painting the house.  

Now, if you limit the price of a home to $100,000 and claim a shack in Appalachia is worth $100,000 and the Biltmore Estate is worth only $100,000.  What do you think happens economically?  Do you think the people who own luxury homes will invest in them as much?  Why would anyone spend more on a home than it will resale for?  For many people a home is not just a place to live, but a financial investment.  Home ownership helps bring people out of poverty.  And if you don't fix the issue of availability, making things cheaper will just reduce the number of homes available for purchase. You won't have solved the problem, but only made it worse on the economy.

MayCaesar

theinfectedmaster said:

@MayCaesar I'm an adult who thinks it's bad myself. I'm 21 by the way.

I am not talking about your age, but the level of your psychological development. The fact that you expect other people to abide by the pricing rules that you prefer implies that the level of yours is not very high. "Houses should cost 10 times less" - what else do you want, a free ice cream truck with the magic infinite supply of sweets?

Houses do not grow on trees. Go out there, build one, then sell it for 1/10th of its market price if you so desire. That would be an adult thing to do. Begging others to sell theirs at the price you like is a childish one.

John_C_87

@theinfectedmaster

The local government places an evaluated price on homes for taxation and for permit and zoning costs already. That is a City, County, Town, and State board or council issue there are working building restrictions on size already in many areas. The reason why they are not everywhere at once is the codes are not written as a United State of Consitutional Right the boards and councils make the desiisions by vote. Though much harder to write a United State Consitutional Right, it can includes a much larger demographic area that is inhabeted by all people and sets a standardized right. The principle is a flat fee is then to be charged when staying inside the united right.

The go to reason historically to force change is accusations of corruption in management and work force. This is not always factual accusation due to fines, penalties, and costs which go along with them increase the service areas can be seen as something else, to easy. A rise in new spending as an expense in budget to enforce these programs. There are abuses and pressures to increase budget and the fines and penalties to increase the productivity of the programs and draw higher skilled workers to the table.

Since I said you are asking the wrong question, what are the right questions to ask. How would it be best to limit the size of homes people live in? We know it should be done it is being done. Thus, the wrong question.

@John_C_87 I like to hear everyone's opinions on a debate, including my own.

That is not a debate it is a descussion about a topic. I am not stoping an opinion I am letting you know you are not up to speed...Unless you can provide a link that sets the tone that as fact nothing is being done about the contol over building sizes including homes.

theinfectedmaster

@just_sayin I'm not saying that they set one particular price; just a maximum price, and only when needed.

theinfectedmaster

@MayCaesar I just want to make sure enough people can afford it. I only believe in putting price roofs on stuff when it's needed. If not enough working class people can afford something, then that's when the government needs to step in and put a price roof on stuff.

theinfectedmaster

@John_C_87 Debates can still involve people's opinions.

theinfectedmaster

@aureus The government put a price roof when diabetes medication got to be too expensive.

MayCaesar

theinfectedmaster said:

@MayCaesar I just want to make sure enough people can afford it. I only believe in putting price roofs on stuff when it's needed. If not enough working class people can afford something, then that's when the government needs to step in and put a price roof on stuff.

And I want everyone to have 10 helicopters. "Want" is exactly the childish thinking. What can you actually accomplish? Houses cost what they do in the US for a reason; you think that you can just slash the price by 90% without obliterating the market? Have you thought at all about everything that comes into building a house, maintaining it and selling it? Have you looked around the world? Can you point at any country that has the quality of life similar to the US, yet the houses in which cost 10% of what they do in the US?
It is all just magic thinking. You "want" something, so it has to materialize. The real world does not work that way.

The government does not need to step in when someone cannot afford something. The US government is not established for the purpose of helping people afford something at all; its role is entirely different.

theinfectedmaster

@MayCaesar I'm talking about essential goods specifically. Yes the government does need to get involved for essential goods if only extremely wealthy people can afford something because otherwise those people suffer, and it only creates problems within society.

MayCaesar

@theinfectedmaster

First, this is demonstrably not the case as currently approximately 2/3 of the US households own a house - 2/3 of the population cannot be characterized as "only extremely wealthy people". Second, read the foundational documents of the United States of America: it is NOT the government's job to provide people with the goods that they cannot afford. Third, you have not elaborated on how owning a million dollar house is "essential". And fourth, you have yet to explain how your proposal to put a maximum price on houses is actually going to result in a sufficient supply of houses in the long run. 

Why set the maximum price at $100,000? Why not $1? You have provided absolutely zero economical reasoning. Rather than labelling everything you dislike as "fallacy", you would do well to do some research and strengthen your position. Right now it is just "I feel like..." and "I want..." level of analysis.

John_C_87

@theinfectedmaster

@John_C_87 Debates can still involve people's opinions.

 I think you are exchanging lack of experience with opinion. You have a point, and the fact of this point is made by recognizing that America and most all nations already control the size of housing. Legislators have for some time now performed the task through building codes and planning boards. So, the Idea of it being an opinion is untrue it is something maybe you had just been unaware of until our talk?

John_C_87

@MayCaesar

Seriously, MayCaesar I know for a fact you have a understanding the houses are already built by mostly approvals...The issue here is the cost of a " Home"  might not best be measured by mortgage value, interest rates, and resale value alone. A structure becomes obsolete by design as well making value of the structure of raw materials used to build, location of land, and the value of the land as far as what can be built on it next.         

theinfectedmaster

@MayCaesar I think it is the government's job to make sure that working class people can get essential goods. Involuntary poverty is a violation of human rights.

MayCaesar

theinfectedmaster said:

@MayCaesar I think it is the government's job to make sure that working class people can get essential goods. Involuntary poverty is a violation of human rights.

Violation by whom? If I cannot afford a $1m house, who has committed a transgression against me and what transgression?

You can think whatever you want, but this is not what the foundational documents of the United States of America state. The phrase "working class" never appears there, not do "essential goods". The role of the government has nothing to do with any goods, but with protection of human rights - in a very different framework of "rights" than the one you are referencing.

John_C_87

@MayCaesar

You can think whatever you want, but this is not what the foundational documents of the United States of America state. The phrase "working class" never appears there, not do "essential goods". The role of the government has nothing to do with any goods, but with protection of human rights - in a very different framework of "rights" than the one you are referencing.

You do know Human Rights are an assignment from criminal law not everyone in America has human rights until they are charged with a crime and arrested. United States Constitutional Rights are on a whole other level then human right. International human rights again by a standard of law treat all people as a criminal that has been convicted. United States Constitutional Rights are a type of Law written without crime they are a series of truth as condition to set or hold an inalienable right. 

So, the answer to theinfectedmaster is yes, it might be a violation of human rights. In America United States Constitutional Right supersede human rights as a type of law. They are a higher law because they are not based on crime where Human rights in Europe and some other places are basically just summarized as Criminal law in America. The argument is over titles of agencies of bureaucracy and orders of filing grievance.

lol.............

theinfectedmaster

@MayCaesar If the vast majority of essential goods gets to be too expensive, except for a millionaires and above, that's when the government needs to step in and set a price roof.

just_sayin

theinfectedmaster said:

@MayCaesar If the vast majority of essential goods gets to be too expensive, except for a millionaires and above, that's when the government needs to step in and set a price roof.

In a free economy, if a company is overcharging, then a competitor company will make the product more cheaply.  If a company is charging a fair price, then a government mandate will not help.  The company will cease to make the product if it can't do so at a reasonable profit.  Then there will be less of the goods and services that you deemed essential.  If the government makes the goods, it will pass on those costs to tax payers, who will pass those costs on to their customers.  So, guess what, you will still be paying for those goods and services - the full price, if not more.

MayCaesar

@theinfectedmaster

Please respond to my actual words. Repeating the same assertion does not strengthen your argument.

aureus

@just_saying , a death/inheritance tax encourages the spending of a persons estate on shorter term benefits which allows the money to recirculate into the economy far faster than removing it for generations.

just_sayin

aureus said:

@just_saying , a death/inheritance tax encourages the spending of a persons estate on shorter term benefits which allows the money to recirculate into the economy far faster than removing it for generations.

Estate taxes also disregard the intentions of the person who bought the property and died.  If they wanted the property to circulate back into the public, then their will would have reflected that.  This is an issue of government taking advantage of the death of an individual.  

Dreamer

@just_sayin

Estate tax vs death tax, you can already tell which side of the debate we are by the language we use. There's a lot of problems with people using their home to basically gentrification everyone else out of the housing game. Sort of like monopoly people buying boardwalk and park-place and upgrading to stick it to the other players.

As for greed and envy those claims are easy to make but difficult to disprove and are ad hominem.

Too many political organizations have exploited tax breaks for religious institutes. There is supposed to be a wall between church and state. A Scientologist can take up key real estate with tax breaks choking out everyone else.

aureus

Argument Topic: Terminology of estate tax is superior to death tax

Dreamer said:

@just_sayin

Estate tax vs death tax, you can already tell which side of the debate we are by the language we use.

It's known as an estate tax in the UK & Ireland so I just stuck with my own parlance. It is a better expression though as not insolvent people pay no tax however people with assets i.e. an estate, do.

aureus

just_sayin said:

Estate taxes also disregard the intentions of the person who bought the property and died.  If they wanted the property to circulate back into the public, then their will would have reflected that.  This is an issue of government taking advantage of the death of an individual.  

All tax are an imposition on a populace. People intentions regarding their assets shouldn't prevent the payment of a certain form of taxation. I do agree that it is the government taking advantage but government should tax all available revenue streams. It would be unfair to ignore one type (estate tax) and disproportionately placing the burden of generating revenue on the others.

An estate tax is merely an incentive to increase the depletion of one's assets prior to their death.